Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2014.

Лазурный поползень[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 3#Лазурный поползень

Cow urine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Aqua omnium florum#Urina vaccina. We have unanimity on what is a sensible and helpful retarget. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panchagavya contains cow urine, but it's misleading to suggest equivalency between the two. (In that sense, it's not unlike redirecting Hops to Beer.) I don't necessarily think we'd ever have an encyclopedic article on cow urine, but the search results should do the job without misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Delete. Do cows ever urinate in any notable way? Certainly their dung is notable: I use a lot on my garden: but their urination I think would be not WP:N and I looked at the target and it just mentions urine generally, nor specifically bovine. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I need to pee. Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created a similar redirect — cow tea — and can confirm that cow urine was a common folk remedy in past times. Andrew (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a better place to retarget. It makes me wonder if we could have an encyclopedic article on the topic. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a redirect so to avoid a double redirect this should instead redirect to Aqua omnium florum#Urina vaccina the section wherr cow tea is mentioned.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:NewYorkCity-struct-stub[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. A clear consensus that has the stronger arguments and also reflects the policy position. The approach adopted here is given at WP:RFD#HARMFUL that states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Normally harm is indicated by one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE being met. No claim of harm, matching any of those criteria, has been made by any of the commentators. It is admittedly unused, but it does look a useful redirect. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old stub tag redirect, no longer used, doesn't match current stub type names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheap -- Y not? 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maintaining an infinitely large landfill site full of unused junk is not cheap. — Scott • talk 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Silly. --NYKevin 02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Y. NewYorkCity == NYC -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed, maintaining an infinitely large landfill site full of unused junk is not cheap, but redirects are.--Launchballer 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoosh - the sound of a point being missed. — Scott • talk 20:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Launchballer. My thoughts exactly. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to vote, due to above comment. I can see this redirect reasonably being used by a new editor not familiar with the naming conventions of some of the stub template names. That, and NYC = New York City. Might as well keep it simple for those who want to use stub tags. (Note: In most cases, I would vote "delete" for similar orphaned template redirects, but this one seems as though it serves a good purpose for navigation to the template of the correct name.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible synonym. I believe I heard the stub sorting people don't like these sorts of redirects, so whenever I'm tagging a stub, I usually have another tab open to find the exact syntax for the tag. I really shouldn't have to do that. There's no good reason to approach redirects to stub tags uniquely. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as harmless, per BDD. Stub templates have their place, I use them a lot: and they are hard to guess sometimes (especially because e.g. with the ones that shove things into categories, the category name and the template name are usually a different syntax). As with BDD, I don't see why redirects to stub templates should be treated specially. For a list of places that are not New York City, see List of places that are not New York City. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I often have to guess at possible names for stub templates and so having plausible redirects seems quite helpful. Andrew (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Launchballer. Typical template redirects, which this definitely appears to be, aren't junk; deleting them advances link rot. Nyttend (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Carpathian Danubian space[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep, in absence of arguments for deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common term, especially in history/archaeology/geography for generally the territory of modern Romania. At most, maybe an article on this space/term can be written. But why delete?--Codrin.B (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Codrinb. It could possibly go to Kingdom of Hungary, but I think it is best left where it stands – any geo articles about this region are always very contentious, and those fights can be had on the talk pages of the articles, where they belong. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it could go to Transdanubia, but that would seem unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Deepak Kalpoe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights makes persuasive arguments for keeping , and similar cases have been demonstrated to exist. While this may be worth a discussion in a centralized location, for now, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with these redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Former suspect in the case of the disappearance of Holloway. Not convicted of any crime nor even charged so redirect should never have been created. redirect for his brother Satish Kalpoe should also be deleted. Shakehandsman (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether convicted of the crime or not, the Kalpoe brothers were notable for being suspects to the case and people would search for them as such. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not create redirects for such people unless they are charged. Even then, should they be cleared in court, we then remove the redirect. Innocent people's names should not redirect to crimes they did not commit.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In UK law that would be sub judice or libel, if they were not convicted. Alabama law probably is different, and I don't have my US Federal Criminal Law and Procedure book on me, for the [Federal Standard Code]]. However I would suggest under WP:BLP that if we are making accusations that have already been made, casting aspersions call it what you will, when they have been found innocent in court, then Wikipedia is on quite a sticky wicket. I would delete the redirect post haste and then take it to the Wikipedia lawyers on what we can and can't say about innocent men found innocent in court. I realise local laws differ but Wikipedia doesn't just publish in the State of Alabama: it's in California or Florida (can't remember which way it moved) but you would probably be done for libel tourism in the UK for it. The article is fine but the redirect is casting aspersions. Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I closed this discussion after speedy deleting the two pages involved under G10. At User:JamesBWatson's request, I am re-opening it and restoring the pages for further discussion. Yunshui 雲水 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am bewildered by the arguments advanced for deletion. The article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway contains several mentions of Deepak Kalpoe, so anyone searching for information about him will stand a chance of finding what they are looking for via the redirect. That is what a redirect does. That is all that the redirect does. The existence of the redirect merely says "information about the subject that you typed in is available in this article": it does not say anything else at all, and it absolutely certainly does not make any allegation or accusation about him. In fact, if anything, the contrary is so: by far the most likely reason why anyone might search for "Deepak Kalpoe" is that they have heard or read somewhere that he was a suspect in this case, in which case the redirect will take them to an article which tells them that a court ruled that there was no evidence against him, and which explicitly refers to an investigation of a sample from his car as a "false lead". Thus the redirect might well result in removing a reader's suspicions against Deepak Kalpoe; I cannot begin to see how it could possibly create or confirm such suspicions.
Having said all that, I take a very different view of earlier versions of the page Deepak Kalpoe, which was a negative unsourced BLP, and I was planning on deleting the earlier versions, but Yunshui has already done that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's an easy here that explains the situation quite well [1]. I realise the person is mentioned in the article, but that still doesn't mean that typing such a name should automatically take one to a page about a crime the person in question wasn't responsible for. I realise the essay isn't policy, but it makes sense to me, and this case is even more extreme in that the persons were not even charged with any offence. If the essay is incorrect hen perhaps someone can alter it please?--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That page specifically refers to "Murder of..." articles, which this is not.
  2. The author of that page says that redirecting "would be a BLP violation", but gives no justification for saying so. Nor can I find any justification for that statement, either in logic or in the BLP policy, or anywhere else. Quite simply, the person who wrote that is wrong. As I said above, a redirect simply says "We don't have an article with that title, but here is another article which has some information on the subject you are looking for." It does not say that the person redirected is guilty of anything, and the fact that someone who for some reason thinks it does chooses to write down their opinions and call it an "essay" does not mean that those opinions are valid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't really see a vast difference between many "disappearance of" articles and "murder of" articles (particularly as the person in this case is now legally dead) but I might be open to your other points (but still not really convinced in this specific case). I've always edited cautiously in this area and not redirected the names of the accused to pages about crimes, though perhaps I've been inadvertently swayed by the attitudes of editors who even attempt to delete redirects for the convicted? The most important thing is the accuracy of the article and I'm certainly pleased to see the older versions of the page removed. Having given the matter further thought, I can see some benefit in having a suspect's name redirect to an article in limited circumstances, for example when wrongly convicted or perhaps even when avoiding conviction on a technicality with overwhelming evidence, but I'm not convinced here. Surely living individuals should at least be charged with an offence in order for us to associate them with the event through a redirect? It seems a bit arbitrary here to have some arrested party's names become redirects and others not.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if editors could discuss how similar people are treated, and how WP:BLPCRIME applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about Disappearance of Madeleine McCann as an analogue? Numerous people have been connected with that child's disappearance: none of those who have been suspects are linked or redirected to in this way.
I'm sorry, but redirects sometimes are not neutral: but then the same care has to be taken to make sure that we don't unwittingly cast aspersions. I can see the point that people would be more likely to find out that the people were cleared (in fact not even charged) but by linking a person's name to an event in which they were simply coincidentally involved is a bit iffy...
To give an analogy. Let's say someone redirects Simon Trew to axe murderer. I bring it here to say there is no info at target. Someone else then adds at the target "Simon Trew is not an axe murderer". They reference this somehow (e.g. by looking at my criminal record which is easily available and find I have never been charged with murder). I grumble and say "look, my name is associated now with being an axe murderer, where I can hardly hold a tack hammer without causing myself some injury". You say well, it's referenced, so you are definitely not an axe murderer, but the redirect is valid, since someone once said you weren't; and redirects have no morals so that's not our problem. That is perverse.
Let the search engine take care of it: I think redirects do have morals. After all, isn't that one reason we come here, because we all have morals about what we think should and should not be in WP? We may have different views – and thank God we do! – but we can't simpl say "oh, a redirect is totally amoral, even if its effect is to associate a non-event with a specific non-notable person".
Either create an article for that person, or delete it: presumably the person is not notable (yet) or an article would have been made for him: until it is, the redirect serves as a token of notability because it looks like an article in the search bar so it confers a notability that doesn't exist. We do this all the time with all kinds of things, name them and don't link them, because they are useful bits of side information but not important enough for their own article. I can't see how this is an different. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Give another analogy, Bierce defines "President" as "One of the few men in the country for whom it is known with certainty that vast numbers of his countrymen didn't want him." We don't create redirects for every single failed candidate in small elections though – yes, failed runners for American presidents will likely have articles because they will be notable in themselves for their achievements and failures before running for president. That is, they are notable in themselves and not specifically for one act of failure. Since these two obviously on the same grounds are not notable, that is the prime motive for deletion: WP:REDLINK and WP:N. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Si, I took a look at the McCann article and found Robert Murat. The McCanns themselves were suspects, but since their role in the event is much more significant, I doubt anyone would object to their redirecting anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is an R to section back to the McCann article (although not marked as such,, that's a technicality and easily fixed) back to what you were reading. It still doesn't mean that person is notable: in fact it means the opposite: Patently not notable (in Wikipedia's own terms) if he does not have his own article. Patently he doesn't have an article: were he to have, my argument woud be blown out of the water; as it is you have just reinforced it.
Yes, the McCanns of course are obviously significant as you said; no quarrel with that. Si Trew (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing a redirect, though. If the Murat redirect is appropriate, wouldn't the Kalpoe ones be as well? --BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am arguing the Murat one should go as well. They all stand or fall by the same premiss. I am not a lawyer: it jus seems to me to do this circular argument (not on RfD but on the aricles themselves) that takes you back to where it started is unhelpful. You may think differently; but to redirect Murat back to the article where it came from I think is doing the same thing as with the original proposal: though I agree all or none should go by the same token. If we are implicitly to accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit, and was shown in court they didn't commit, then they should all go by the same token. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if anything, having the redirect here will inform our readers that he wasn't charged and therefore is not considered a suspect. This would indeed be the exact opposite effect which people are claiming above. For an excellent example of this occurring elsewhere, we discussed and kept Ryan Lanza as a redirect. JamesBWatson is spot-on above, there is absolutely no way BLP precludes a redirect here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Virtual Mom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense. The actress is not even one the leads in the film, and films should not redirect to actors anyways because it is not their film. If anything the article should either redirect to Laurie Lynd, the director, or Sheila McCarthy who was both a lead actress and writer for the film, but I'm not really in favor of that because neither article contains any information about the film itself. JDDJS (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Henley index[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The Henley Index is a concept created by Henley & Partners, the self proclaimed Global Leaders In Residence and Citizenship Planning. The index itself is really just how many countries a citizen can go to visa free or visa on arrival (or freedom of movement). Having this as a redirect implies that this is actually a "thing", when really it is just what one company calls it. I have questioned the use of Henley's "index" at RS/N, while I don't doubt it's accuracy, it does seem somewhat like a spam link, and I would prefer either a RS or a government source. Since we don't have an article on the company or the index, I would say delete this redirect. If someone wants to look for the Henley Index, they should look at the Henley website. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as of this posting there were zero incoming wikilinks links to this redirect. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the redirects' history (not the article itself but the redirects) one was created (in 2010) by a WP:SOCKPUPPET (User:Solevita) who was blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Kim Cardassian soon after; the other by User:L is for Lover also a sock around the same time and blocked indefintely as sock of same user. This user seemed to have run stack loads of socks; so we shall probably be mopping up here at RfD for years now if they were automated.
That would seem a reason to delete it although I can't put my finger on what RfD guideline/policy would cover that. The sockpuppeteer, User:Kim Cardassian, is also blocked indefinitely so although I should like to find definitely whether he or she works for this organization, I am finding it a bit tricky to do so on Wikipedia search. Google brings up Twitter, Facebook and Reddit accounts on this name, but is mostly just silly humour stuff (quoting Monty Python etc) so may not be the same person as this ex-user... I don't have accounts at any of those and don't want to have.
I can't think of what exactly would cover this – in a sense they are harmless as redirects but obviously created maliciously. For all I know, the sock might hate the company and these do them no good. I could find no external sources for the user: most lead me to Kim Kardashian who I had never heard of but I would imagine is not the same person at all: whether the user name was a pun on hers I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Browns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Browns (disambiguation) to Browns. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to shades of brown. This redirect has pointed to various values of "browns", including brown people in the past. There also exists browns (disambiguation). I believe that the primary meaning of "browns" as to collectively refer to all shades/tones/hues of the color brown. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jaguars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jaguar. The big cat exists in regions outside the USA. Not everyone is an NFL football fan, and there's a famous car called "Jaguar". This is a US sports bias, so should be corrected. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retaget per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jaguar (disambiguation) There is probably no Primary Topic for the plural form of the word. PamD 06:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jaguar as the plural of a common noun, for which all other titles containing ""Jaguar" are named. bd2412 T 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jaguar, if the cat is the primary topic (and it looks like it is, both by DAB review, and because it sits at jaguar), than the plural should redirect to it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jaguar per nom, and then tag with {{R from plural}}. Steel1943 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

49ers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 49er disambiguation page. This has variously pointed to the football team or the disambiguation page at points in its past. However, outside of football, 49ers are also quite well known for the California Gold Rush. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 49er dab page. No evidence of a primary topic. PamD 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, then move dab over redirect per WP:DABNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per all above. It's the usual business of putting the cart before the horse. The team is named after the event; not the other way around. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Athens railway station[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. You want WP:RM, not RfD. Ping me or leave me a message on my talk page if you need any help. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap redirect titles (Manual of style): This is a deletion and move request in one. The manual of style for railway station articles generally do not capitalise the term "railway station", so for the purpose of Greek railways articles we should stick to that. Hence, the redirect Athens railway station needs to be deleted to make way for the move-in of content and history from Athens Railway Station. Then after turning Athens Railway Station into a redirect, it requires indefinite edit protection to reduce opportunity for activity by any future sockpuppet of the banned user Pumpie. What do you think of the plan? Marianian(talk) 04:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Htbah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to a redirect of a non-notable song. Even if the song were to have its own article, this is an unlikely seach term. Should we create Ygliiylion to redirect to You're Gonna Love It, If You Like It Or Not? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are several abbreviations similar to this, such as ATFEH, BTBAM and TDWP. Unless there is a better use for "htbah", it should remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are for bands that appear to have some sourced content referring to them as such, making them more likely search terms. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Redirects are cheap. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#Delete reason #8. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." This redirect is beyond obscure in its relation to the target page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - WP:R#KEEP bullet 5 says "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:" "Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You let me know when you find that person because I'm sure they would also find Jttcote and Ibtwypdb helpful too. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I would find this redirect useful, but I personally would not go beyond about 5-6 words for such an abbreviation. The word "someone" implies one person. It appears that over a seven day period, this has gotten 5 hits per day. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was struggling to think of a likely typo as a possible retarget – bath was the closest I could come up with; baath is just about possible if one thinks of someone typing in English on an Arabic keyboard and missing the left-to-right order writing somehow but seems rather a stretch; hitbar and hottub are out; high-tolerance beamed atmospheric hydrography does not exist (unsurprisingly, as I just made it up: but having done so might try to wangle a government research grant for it) – so in the absence of one I agree with the proposer and JDDJS. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Find a group of editors who find this useful ... which is very unlikely given that not even the subject of the redirect's target uses this abbreviation ... and I may change my mind. Google hits and page views won't count in this case: people could be directed to the target out of random curiosity, and then become completely confused why they arrived here. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete now that I see that this is essentially an {{R from song}}, and so is this redirect's target: the nominated redirect is a Double Redirect. Wow, the target is a redirect itself, but unless the nominated redirect targets the other redirect, the acronym will not make any sense. I mean, after the double redirect is fixed, a reader will look up "Htbah", arrive at Builders of the Future, and then become so confused that they might have a seizure and have a stroke simultaneously. Seriously, delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_21&oldid=1136083247"